This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- 1st vs 2:1 from "target uni" for consulting
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- What is the best to go to excluding Oxbridge
- My son says LSE is a top university....but it's ranked low?
- Oxbridge vs other top Russell Group unis
- Access Course or Foundation Year
- Exeter Law Prestige
- Does a masters at a RG Uni after attending a non-RG Uni enhance employment?
- Rank these for me please
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- A level options (For Compsci)
- Newspaper league tables are questionable — so I made my own
- URGENT Lancaster vs Notts vs Hertfordshire vs middlesex university cs
- Law
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- has anyone got into oxbridge for masters with bad first year grades?
- The Forum Games Hurt/Heal Game
- University
- Bath, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester or UCL for Architecture
Oxbridge 2:1 VS Top Russell Group 1st
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Delusory
What is your line of work, out of interest?
Hopefully I 'll get to be an academic one day.
I'm going to oxford if I meet my offer (hopefully), and I can tell you now that this really doesn't matter that much. A 2:1 from any Russel Group is quite respectable, and you are quite priviledged to achieve one from there. What will really matter in the job market is not your academic capabilities, but your own personality and approach to the job, as well as your own experience.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Original post by SyntaxZogre
I'm going to oxford if I meet my offer (hopefully), and I can tell you now that this really doesn't matter that much. A 2:1 from any Russel Group is quite respectable, and you are quite priviledged to achieve one from there. Whavt will really matter in the job market is not your academic capabilities, but your own personality and approach to the job, as well as your own experience.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Yes. Also best of luck at Oxford dude
It wouldn't really matter much to me, but I'd rather have a piece of paper saying I had a 1st than a 2:1. I don't buy into this idea that it's possible to quantify how difficult/complex each degree from each university is (although there will be differences, I don't know what these are), so I can't make an informed decision beyond what it says on the piece of paper.
And if it said first class on the bit of paper, I'd probably be happier. Apart from that it isn't going to have much impact on anyone's life (unless they need a first for postgrad).
And if it said first class on the bit of paper, I'd probably be happier. Apart from that it isn't going to have much impact on anyone's life (unless they need a first for postgrad).
Original post by SyntaxZogre
I'm going to oxford if I meet my offer (hopefully), and I can tell you now that this really doesn't matter that much. A 2:1 from any Russel Group is quite respectable, and you are quite priviledged to achieve one from there. What will really matter in the job market is not your academic capabilities, but your own personality and approach to the job, as well as your own experience.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Unless you are looking to do a p.h.d or something, this really shouldn't matter.
Not entirely true. For top professions like the Bar and, I imagine (though I'm less informed) investment banking etc a 1st can snag a precious interview and be the edge between two or more very similar candidates. Between '10 and '11 (most recent data) 35% of pupil barristers had a first, yet about 25% of pupils were from Russell Group and a similar percentage from non-Russell/Oxbridge (over 50% overall); many, if not the majority of these successful applicants will have got past the strong Oxbridge preference at the Bar largely on the back of 1sts, especially true for successful applicants from the lower uni's.
Aside from that, there is a reason for why degree classes exist and a 1st is generally going to have at least some advantage over a 2:1 at a comparable if inequal institution such as RG+ / Oxbridge, if not always a huge one.
(edited 11 years ago)
Depending on the subject, which changes on a case-by-case basis, I'd imagine most people see an Oxbridge 2:1 as being better than a Russell Group 2:1. A low Russell Group 1st is probably equivalent to an Oxbridge 66/67, but it's essentially impossible to verify this.
This discussion is so vague, and so determinate on so many different factors, that there's no point even bothering to try to make a formula for comparison. It's way too general. If, for example, somebody from a non-Russell Group, non-Oxbridge, university, were to get a 98 on their business studies + pig farm management sandwich degree, who's to say, really, that they're not on a par with a 60 from either Oxbridge or, say, Warwick?
This discussion is so vague, and so determinate on so many different factors, that there's no point even bothering to try to make a formula for comparison. It's way too general. If, for example, somebody from a non-Russell Group, non-Oxbridge, university, were to get a 98 on their business studies + pig farm management sandwich degree, who's to say, really, that they're not on a par with a 60 from either Oxbridge or, say, Warwick?
Original post by Delusory
TL;DR
1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.
2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?
3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.
---
Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.
Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:
- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews
There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.
Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?
Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.
Vote away!
1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.
2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?
3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.
---
Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.
Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:
- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews
There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.
Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?
Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.
Vote away!
I second the above. Seriously, grow up. As soon as you enter the real world, you will (hopefully) realise that there are more things matter than just university name and degree classification - one example: connections.
Original post by Birkenhead
Do you actually know what you're talking about? I have spoken to high-up barristers at Middle Temple, and have researched this area quite extensively and I can tell you that a first from any of the uni's listed in the OP would supersede an Oxbridge 2:1 for most pupillage committees, though there would be more to the decision than that.
A lot of law firms have very heavy Oxbridge bias. The ratio of Oxbridge to non oxbridge at some firms is unbelievable. Plus all I said was that UCL/LSE 1st would DEFINATELY be better than Oxbridge 2:1, the others I am not sure on.
Original post by KD35
A lot of law firms have very heavy Oxbridge bias. The ratio of Oxbridge to non oxbridge at some firms is unbelievable. Plus all I said was that UCL/LSE 1st would DEFINATELY be better than Oxbridge 2:1, the others I am not sure on.
The MC firms are almost entirely Oxbridge but that isn't really relevant here because they are taking the best of the best, even within the Oxbridge crowd. If you have a look at the barristers on an MC website (e.g.) you will find that not only will most of them have 1sts to their name (not 2:1s, which is what we're discussing here) but a host of prizes and BCLs/LLMs etc aswell. In the Bar as a whole, Oxbridge grads tend more often to hold 2:1s, and the RG and even non-RG grads with 1sts have and do beat these more mainstream lot to pupillage and tenancy, not least because of their superior degree class. I say this to make the point that while degree class may not matter as much elsewhere, within the Bar it is crucial and can make all the difference (not to disregard other factors).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Birkenhead
Not entirely true. For top professions like the Bar and, I imagine (though I'm less informed) investment banking etc a 1st can snag a precious interview and be the edge between two or more very similar candidates. Between '10 and '11 (most recent data) 35% of pupil barristers had a first, yet about 25% of pupils were from Russell Group and a similar percentage from non-Russell/Oxbridge (over 50% overall); many, if not the majority of these successful applicants will have got past the strong Oxbridge preference at the Bar largely on the back of 1sts, especially true for successful applicants from the lower uni's.
Aside from that, there is a reason for why degree classes exist and a 1st is generally going to have at least some advantage over a 2:1 at a comparable if inequal institution such as RG+ / Oxbridge, if not always a huge one.
Aside from that, there is a reason for why degree classes exist and a 1st is generally going to have at least some advantage over a 2:1 at a comparable if inequal institution such as RG+ / Oxbridge, if not always a huge one.
Oviously Law is an exception, and yes a 1st will have a small advantage, but in the long run, it really won't affect you that much, and this debate really is quite pointless, and typical of TSR.
Original post by SyntaxZogre
Oviously Law is an exception, and yes a 1st will have a small advantage, but in the long run, it really won't affect you that much, and this debate really is quite pointless, and typical of TSR.
Do you know anything about law, or are you making comments which sound balanced and reasoned without actually having any real awareness of the field? A 1st has a big advantage at the Bar, and, as I have explained, with only 35% of pupil barristers carrying a first in the most recent statistics - and degree classification the most important factor in a pupillage committee's decision - could very well be the difference between becoming a practising barrister or not. Which will have a very big effect on someone.
Original post by Birkenhead
Do you know anything about law, or are you making comments which sound balanced and reasoned without actually having any real awareness of the field? A 1st has a big advantage at the Bar, and, as I have explained, with only 35% of pupil barristers carrying a first in the most recent statistics - and degree classification the most important factor in a pupillage committee's decision - could very well be the difference between becoming a practising barrister or not. Which will have a very big effect on someone.
Yeah I do lol, that's why I said 'obviously law is an exception'.
Original post by SyntaxZogre
Yeah I do lol, that's why I said 'obviously law is an exception'.
All that proves is that you can give off the impression that you do. It's a neat turn of phrase but doesn't contain any actual substance. You've said that a 1st will give very little advantage at the Bar, which is completely untrue.
Original post by Delusory
TL;DR
1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.
2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?
3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.
---
Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.
Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:
- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews
There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.
Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?
Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.
Vote away!
1. Top Russell Group constitutes, for sake of argument, the 10 universities listed below. If you feel that only some of the listed uni's are good enough to make their 1sts better than Oxbridge's 2:1s, weigh up those that do against those that don't and then decide. The 1st will be the median mark for a 1st, the 2:1 likewise the exact median, for the sake of balance.
2. Different uni's, different strengths in different courses blah blah blah. Just try to envisage a 'General' course, equally as prestigious and well-taught etc at all the uni's and where all else is equal except the prestige of the uni's and the degree classes. On this basis, is a top RG 1st better than an Oxbridge 2:1 in your eyes?
3. 'Better' here = superior career prospects and just what you'd rather have under your belt.
---
Not a debate that hasn't been had before, but just thought I'd reignite it to see today's opinions with my own twists.
Firstly, 'Top Russell Group', (though not meaning to judge against those which, for argument's sake, are excluded - please don't let this deteriorate into that) will constitute the likes of:
- UCL
- LSE
- Imperial
- Durham
- Bristol
- KCL
- York
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- St Andrews
There will be some who feel that while, say, an Imperial 1st would exceed
an Oxbridge 2:1, the same should not be said of KCL. I ask those people to weigh up those 1st's which they would consider superior to an Oxbridge 2:1 from the universities mentioned against those they wouldn't and come to a conclusion by majority rule.
Secondly, courses. Different uni's have different strengths, how can we possibly say for all courses whether a 1st is better than an Oxbridge 2:1 blah blah blah. Just try to imagine a kind of 'General Studies' course at these uni's, except without the ridicule. A kind of fit-all course which is equally as served by all the aforementioned uni's and whose degree class prestige is dependent entirely on the prestige of the uni. When all else is equal but the prestige of the universities, is a top RG 1:1 better than an Oxbridge 2:1?
Better. What is 'better'. Largely which has more weight generally-speaking with employers, though again of course there will be some variation here try to envisage the general impressions. Which will give superior career prospects generally. Also just which would you rather have under your belt.
Vote away!
St Andrews Isn't a russell group university
Original post by 99ja02
how many times do we have to ask this same question?
Original post by 99ja02
how times do we have to ask this same question?
Indeed, twice
Related discussions
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- 1st vs 2:1 from "target uni" for consulting
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- What is the best to go to excluding Oxbridge
- My son says LSE is a top university....but it's ranked low?
- Oxbridge vs other top Russell Group unis
- Access Course or Foundation Year
- Exeter Law Prestige
- Does a masters at a RG Uni after attending a non-RG Uni enhance employment?
- Rank these for me please
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- A level options (For Compsci)
- Newspaper league tables are questionable — so I made my own
- URGENT Lancaster vs Notts vs Hertfordshire vs middlesex university cs
- Law
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- has anyone got into oxbridge for masters with bad first year grades?
- The Forum Games Hurt/Heal Game
- University
- Bath, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester or UCL for Architecture
Latest
Trending
Last reply 31 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadOxford Undergraduate
161
388
Last reply 15 hours ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadCambridge Undergraduate
160
223
Last reply 3 days ago
Manchester University Accommodation Swaps Official thread 2024University of Manchester
202
865
Last reply 5 days ago
Official Durham University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryDurham University
290
979
